The city of Lubbock could wind up paying twice the $243,000 judgment awarded last week by a federal appeals court to a former water department employee.

The city of Lubbock could wind up paying twice the $243,000 judgment awarded last week by a federal appeals court to a former water department employee.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court jury that the city had retaliated against Martha Ellerbrook by not hiring her for a position in the water department after she assisted her husband in a lawsuit against the city over his firing. Her husband, Terry, eventually reached a settlement with the city.

Dick Dent III, attorney for Martha Ellerbrook, said he and attorneys Adam Voyles and Rick Knight, who helped file legal documents during the appeal on Ellerbrook’s behalf, will have to re-file their fees before the case returns to U.S. District Court for settlement.

The New Orleans-based appeals court’s decision said the city has to pay $243,000 in lost wages and retirement to Ellerbrook, plus attorneys fees and court costs. The city also will have to pay the cost of the appeal.

The city’s cost could rise if officials decide to appeal Wednesday’s decision or seek a rehearing.

“Certainly our attorneys will advise on their view of the verdict, and what our legal options may be going forward,” said Mayor Tom Martin.

The next regular City Council meeting is March 29.

The discussion is not on the agenda for the called executive session at 8:30 a.m. Monday. That closed-door meeting will deal with the city’s ongoing arbitration with its former employee insurance administrator, AAG.

On Friday, Dent said at the time of the jury’s decision in U.S. District Court in Lubbock, fees for Ellerbrook totaled a little more than the $243,000 the jury awarded to her.

Now, after the appeal, Dent said he wouldn’t be surprised if the number they submit is double the $243,000 judgment, or $486,000.

Mayor Tom Martin said he is unsure exactly where the money would come from if the city had to pay.

The city has insurance against lawsuits to help cover costs, but Martin is unsure of the coverage as it relates to the Ellerbrook case.

The city’s insurance has varying deductibles. Martin said he is unsure how much the deductible is for this specific case, but he should find out when briefed by the attorneys.

Martin said the city has a fund of several million dollars reserved to pay deductibles or for the cost of the case if the total doesn’t cover the deductible.

Attorneys for the city didn’t return calls Friday to answer questions about the cost of defending the Ellerbrook lawsuit, filed June 26, 2009. City managers contacted didn’t know the amount.

Martin said he is unsure how much money the city has invested in the case for attorneys fees and court costs, as it began before he was elected.

From 1989-2003, Ellerbrook worked in the water department in various capacities until the city eliminated her job as part of a reduction-in-force.

Ellerbrook’s husband, Terry, worked for the city from 1982 until 2005, when he was notified he’d be terminated. But Terry filed a grievance, and the city changed his job title.

In 2006, Terry filed a lawsuit against the city and a month later a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming the city had retaliated against him because he did not support the Lake Alan Henry pipeline project.

Martha helped her husband with his claims against the city in various ways. As her husband’s case was pending, she applied for a city job of water programs coordinator — one of 24 people. She would be working for Tom Adams, the former deputy city manager, who had tried to fire her husband.

Later, when she wound up as a finalist for the position, but lost because of a scoring system set up by Adams and administered by a consultant, Martha believed her assistance to her husband cost her the job.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Sure is a lot of "Martin said his unsure." He's the mayor, for God's sake and best get to be sure on the subject which has been an ongoing affair for quite some time. How much will this blunder by the city cost us, the tax payers?

It 's called don't [filtered word] where you eat. She knew good and well from the first interview she didn't have a snow balls chance in h e l l. If you are a tax paying citizen of Lubbock you are now footing the bill on this deal. If you own a business, be careful before hiring a sue happy family.

I don't guess any of us will ever really know because we weren't there, on the job, but it sounds like a case of politics. Maybe Tom Adams is the one who should be fired. It sounds like "he said, she said" nonsense to me. It is costing me tax payer dollars though and that is the bottom line for all of us who call Lubbock home. I do think mayor Tom Martin should be a little more up on what is going on in his jurisdiction.